Blue Sphere, Inc. v. Swift et al., No. 8:14-cv-00782-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cak. filed 08/04/15) [Doc. 65].
Despite her world tour, and claims that she has no knowledge about Plaintiff's claims, Taylor Swift must be deposed in a trademark action. The Court denied her motion for a protective order, finding that that, notwithstanding the "apex doctrine" that protects high-level corporate executives from harassing depositions, "the extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a pr otective order prohibiting the deposition of a named party are not present here." Further, Swifts schedule -- including her world tour -- was not a basis for a protective order. "There is no evidence in the record to show that Plai ntiffs have been inconsiderate of Swift’s schedule. To the contrary, the record shows just the opposi te. Nor does the evidence suggest that Plaintiffs have sandbagged Swift’s deposition to coincide with her world tour; instead, the record shows that, as in most cases, most deposi tions have been left until the end of the discovery period."